Roadkill as a method of wildlife control, and eating roadkill
Hey, hi. Got a joke for you.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To show the deer how it's done.
I'm a new conservationist and a new hunter. I've returned to school as an adult to study conservation biology. In one of my courses, we read Jim Sterba's excellent book Nature Wars. He's a hunter who studied environmental history to take on arguments from anti-hunters. He argues that hitting animals with cars is an indirect method of controlling wildlife populations, and that people should embrace salvaging roadkill as a decent source of protein, maybe donating the tenderloin steaks to a food pantry. What are your thoughts? (Yes, he's American, but I think his logic applies to Canadians as well.)
Among the arguments:
- The massive numbers of animals killed by cars annually mean that roadkill is actually a method of wildlife control, even if it's unintentional
- Collisions between motor vehicles and wildlife cost society $6 billion to $12 billion annually in the USA
- For every dead animal you see beside the road, there's ten more you can't see in the weeds
- Statistics: an average white-tailed deer yields about sixty pounds of boned meat. Let's say half is edible. At a conservative estimate of a million roadkill deer per year, Americans alone are wasting upward of 30 million pounds of venision annually. That's roughly 120 million meals.
- The value of the discarded meat is between $270 million and $360 million a year in the States.
Again, that's in America, but lots about Jim's ideology applies here in Ontario as well.
Would you eat roadkill if it's fresh and most of the meat is unbruised? Or donate it to a pantry for the homeless and/or the poor?